Survival

Hello, I am curious about something and was hoping this forum might have the right people to ask.

Survival is often used as an explanation of evolution and morality in the atheistic community, and although its obvious enough that we have survived, I am wondering how it is possible to prove that survival is our great quest without circular reasoning.

Even more important to me, and this is where scientism will not do me any favors, is why do things survive? This is obviously not a question on how they survive.

Hello, I am curious about something and was hoping this forum might have the right people to ask.

Survival is often used as an explanation of evolution and morality in the atheistic community, and although its obvious enough that we have survived, I am wondering how it is possible to prove that survival is our great quest without circular reasoning.

Even more important to me, and this is where scientism will not do me any favors, is why do things survive? This is obviously not a question on how they survive.

Thanks.

It’s biology. Biology doesn’t reason or do things based upon how reasonable they are. Biology isn’t an entity of some sort, it’s a field of study regarding how living things function. What you’re talking about is ideology, not science. Genes don’t “decide” to behave the way they behave any more than air or water decide to behave they way they behave, they just do. You’re presuming volition where there is none.

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

—

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of performance.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

You wonder how to prove that survival is ‘our great quest without circular reasoning’ I wonder what led you to ask this question. The answer provided by ScepticX seems perfectly reasonable to me, in fact it seems quite intelligent and succinct. Yet you dismiss it as the type of response you were hoping not to get. You say ‘scientism’ will not do you any favors. I ask what sort of favors do you expect from a word, particularly one that I don’t believe is really a word?

Personally, I don’t agree with the premise that human survival is ‘our great quest’ as you put it. Humans, as a species, seem far more interested in death and destruction than survival. It is only a small minority of humans that are truly interested in doing anything beneficial for our species survival. And even they sometimes screw up it up - despite their best intentions.

If you want to actually understand survival, I’d suggest you try doing something truly dangerous, and life threatening and see if you survive. For it is only through surviving that one can truly come to understand what survival really means. And if perchance you don’t survive? One less mouth to feed, then, i suppose.

If, on the other hand you merely want to debate the philosophy of survival – whatever that means - with people intelligent enough to make you think, and challenge you to think for yourself, then I suppose you have come to the right place, but perhaps to the wrong forum. Try reposting you question in the Philosophy forum. ScepticX’s’ response is surely the right one from a scientific point of view.